LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

    Quote from Ecco

    Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash.
    Note that Rossi's Fluid Heater patent states that the Nickel powder used has been treated to increase its porosity. Plain nickel powder is not porous and simply heating at low temperature will not make it porous. I believe the patent states that particles from the nanometric to micrometric range can be used because the catalysts I mentioned retain their nanoporous 3D structure regardless of actual overall particle size. What's your opinion?


    How to build a Rossi powder pretreatment processor.


    I copied this design from Ken Shoulders.


    http://rexresearch.com/ev/ev2x.gif

    Firstly, the spark can be generated at the tip of a sharply pointed electrode when a large negative charge (2-10 kv) is applied. A dielectric plate (preferably fused quartz or alumina, typically 0.0254 cm thick) intervenes between the emitter cathode and the collector anode. I believe that Rossi uses fued quartz because a particle of silicon oxide was found in the pretreated fuel by the Lugano fuel analysis.


    A thin channel is cut in the dielectric as a holder for the 5 micron nickel powder. This allows the spark to follow the channel and interact with the nickel powder.


    The arc makes a streak of light as it travels across the surface of the dielectric following the channel, and imparts a localized surface charge. An amount of time suffent to allow the electric charge produced by the spark to disperse so that the next spark will follow the channel. Unless this charge is dispersed, it will cause the next spark to follow another path. A witness plate of metal foil may be positioned to intercept the spark, and will sustain visible damage from their impact. The foil thus serves to detect and locate the entities even if they are invisible.


    The anode current value can vary from 1 to 6 amperes. Shoulders has found that a 1-ampere level of anode current is produced by a chain of 3-5 EV beads whose overall diameter is about 3 micrometers. A sufficiently low load resistor must be used so that the voltage will not rise and deflect the EV. For a 2 kv pulse, a rise of 500 volts at the anode is a reasonable maximum. The rise rate is very high, and a wide-band oscilloscope is required to measure it. Otherwise, a capacitively coupled load must be provided for the EV. There is an upper EV size or current limit that can be collected for any particular wire size. The EV generator is typically about 10 mm. long, but the generation and manipulation of EVs can be accomplished with structures as small as 10 micrometers. The materials used in its construction need be very stable and durable to withstand the high energy of EVs. The generator also can be tubular, and it can be designed to operate in a vacuum or in a gaseous atmosphere. In a high vacuum system, the space between the cathode and anode should be less than 1 mm for a 2 kv charge. In a gaseous atmosphere of a few torrs pressure, the distance between the electrodes can extend to over 60 cm if a ground plane is positioned next to or around the tube.


    The negative pulse can vary from a few nanoseconds to continuous DC without unduly influencing the production of EVs. A series resistor is placed between the pulse voltage source and the EV generator, and a scope is used to monitor the voltage. The current is calculated from the resistor value and the voltage drop.Long pulse conditions in a gas atmosphere require the use of an input resistor to prevent a sustained glow discharge within the tube. The discharge is easily quenched under low pressure or vacuum conditions. Using a pulse period of 0.1 microsecond, for example, a resistor value of 500 to 1500 ohms is practical for operation in either a vacuum or gaseous regime.


    The cathode may be constructed of copper or a wide variety of other materials (Ag, Ni, Al, etc.). I would suggest nickel. It must have a sharp tip or edge so that a very high field can concentrate there. However, the dissipation of energy by EV production destroys the electrode tip, which must be regenerated. This can be accomplished with a liquid conductor such as mercury. Non-metal conductors also may be used instead (i.e., glycerin doped with potassium iodide, or nitroglycerin/nitric acid). The pulse rate of the power applied to the cathode must be low enough to allow migration of the liquid conductor. Rossi probably uses mercury as the liquid cathode because of the heavy element residue present on his nickel fuel particles.


    The cathode also can be embedded within a guide groove in the dielectric base. Such a cathode may be made of metallic paste. The residue on Rossi fuel leads me to suspect that the following method was used to process his fuel. Molybdenum powder is preferable because silver or copper are too soluble in mercury to be useful in such a film circuit. A surface embedded cathode enables the propagation of EVs with only 500 volts and a much higher pulse rate. Molybdenum was found in the Lugano fuel analysis.


    Pausing for some observations about the Lugano report:
    "Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash."


    I believe that these elements were transmutation products produce by the fuel pretreatment process. Also, the large numbers of heavy elements that were welded onto the surface of the nickel powder were produced in preprocessing.


    The elements on the carbon adhesive might be considered additive. However I doubt that they were added in separately. But the elements on the surface of the nickel particles were welded and produced by a high temperature transmutation produced by fuel preprocessing.


    Continuing on with the description of the process: an EV can be guided across the surface of a dielectric if a positively charged ground plane or counter-electrode is positioned on the opposite side of the dielectric. The path of the EV also can be influenced by RC (Resistance/Capacitance) and LC (Induction/Capacitance) guides.


    This process must be done in an isolated atmosphere of vacuum where the mercury and moly vapers can be diverted away from the experimenter.

    Quote from Ecco

    Raney nickel or similar skeletal catalysts (such as Urushibara Nickel or even the iron oxide catalyst used by Holmlid) are also nano-meshes. They are 3d-porous on the nanoscale. Would they be ok according to your thinking?


    Let us try to define a spec for a metal foam for the Glowstick reactor.


    The foam is nickel. It is an open cell filtration foam. Its filaments are as thin as possible(high porosity). The particle sizes that the foam holds are from 5 to 200 microns.




    A channel cavity down the center of the filter will turn the reactor into a heat pipe.

    Quote from acalaon

    @axil
    I see that eventually you agree that LENR are made possible by an uncommon neutral particle with a high magnetic moment. You call it Exotic Neutral Particle (ENP), I called them Hydronions. My theory explains their origin and properties, inclusive the NAE (Ca(IV), K(IV), Zr(IV), Li(I), N(III), ...).


    These Exotic Neutral Particles(ENP) produce a monopole magnetic field and pass through glass and aluminum - non ferromagnetic material. They cannot be a particle based cluster. See the post dated Wednesday, 1:05am on this thread.

    Axil, below your portrait place holder is a caption, ”Verified User” it says. Being just a "Forum-Beginner" I do not know what it takes to earn this title, but my considered opinion is that ”Verified Abuser" (of physical concepts) would serve better for you :)

    Quote from H-G Branzell

    Axil, below your portrait place holder is a caption, ”Verified User” it says. Being just a "Forum-Beginner" I do not know what it takes to earn this title, but my considered opinion is that ”Verified Abuser" (of physical concepts) would serve better for you :)



    What specifically gives you a cold feeling. Please list. I will provide references.

    Specifically most everything you say, axil. To me it is clear that you are you are working with the next level of LENR. May I suggest the acronym FANR for this, it is short for Fantasy Assisted Nuclear Reactions. As if LENR would not be fanciful enough ...

    Quote from H-G Branzell

    Specifically most everything you say, axil. To me it is clear that you are you are working with the next level of LENR. May I suggest the acronym FANR for this, it is short for Fantasy Assisted Nuclear Reactions. As if LENR would not be fanciful enough ...


    The devil is in the details. As the LENR experimental results become more outlandish so too do the associated theoretical explanations. For example, how does Holmlid produce mesons that CERN has trouble producing using gigawatts of superconducting power? Holmlid only uses a low powered laser pointer to drive this process. Can we expect a reasonable explanation of impossible experimental results? The pure Ni62 100 microm nickel particle produced in the Lugano experiment is even more unbelievable, even Rossi couldn't believe it, but it happened.



    Talking about future development from Rossi's engineer, Fabiani says:
    “The field that this reaction opens up is so vast that it’s almost impossible to imagine all the capabilities and possibilities. I have always been a lover of science fiction, and yet I was never able to believe that the famous star ships you see in the movies would become possible, because it seemed too far away. But I have to say that when I saw what Rossi was able to open, I’m seeing that world getting closer. Maybe before I die I will see those starships. Yes, it’s a child’s dream.”

    Quote from Andrea Calaon

    @axil
    I don't know what you mean by "particle based clusters". Hyd are made of an electron and a hydrogen nucleus bound together. No clusters.


    I was speaking about the clustered neutron theory that J.C. Fisher came up with in the Polyneutron theory.


    The 100 micron pure Ni62 ash particle from the Lugano test speaks against any theory that requires either short range contact or a direct contact with the location of transmutation.


    The Lugano ash particle requires that the LENR effect act at long range because of its isotopic purity. Direct or short range action implies a stronger effect at the edges of the particle were the neutral particle first comes in contact with the nickel particle. This is not seen. The LENR effect must be a stand off process that acts at a distance of between 50 and 100 microns to effect the center of the particle equally at the same level of transmutation as occurs at the particles' edges. The Lugano particle has not changed in appearance in any way even after producing loads of nuclear energy as billions of atoms produce nuclear energy. The neutrons that are going into the nickel are coming from the Li7 coating the outside of the nickel particle. There are billions of lithium atoms involved in this reaction also.


    How this evenly spread clustered transmutation process happens is one of the great mysteries of LENR and speaks to the requirement of quantum mechanical energy teleportation. This implies multiparticle entanglement which has just been added to the quantum mechanical game plan recently.

    Axil, you ask: “Can we expect a reasonable explanation of impossible experimental results?”


    When somebody reports what seems to be an impossible result of an experiment the normal reaction to this is to question the validity of the experiment whereas your gut reaction is to heels over head invent an outlandish theory that “explains” the impossible result.


    With this strategy it is a piece of cake to explain how a pumpkin can be turned into a carriage.

    And so on, as though you, Axil, conceived and wrote the whole piece.


    At least in this case you have attributed the source of this page long-piece apparently largely or totally excerpted from Ken Shoulders. I would recommend highlighting such "lifts" from others or italicizing. Others have noted your tendency to paste in materials to make your FANR. The whole of your effort seems to be counter productive of any real progress in the actual hard work in LENR R&D.

    Quote from H-G Branzell

    Axil, you ask: “Can we expect a reasonable explanation of impossible experimental results?”


    When somebody reports what seems to be an impossible result of an experiment the normal reaction to this is to question the validity of the experiment whereas your gut reaction is to heels over head invent an outlandish theory that “explains” the impossible result.


    With this strategy it is a piece of cake to explain how a pumpkin can be turned into a carriage.


    With the exception of a few top LENR theorists, the run of the mill LENR theorist select the experimental results that fit their theories and reject the results that don't. This is similar to the way that the naysayers treat LENR experimental results which categorically state that all LENR experiments are improperly performed and that the results are nonsense. An open mind must be completely open and not selectively open. I modify my theoretical thinking to be inclusive of all LENR results and do my best to find the standard scientific underpinnings of these results. Rejecting these results is only human; even Holmlid cannot understand or except what his experiments imply. H-G Branzell, you can reject the Lugano experimental results along with Mary Yugo but your understanding of LENR will be poorer for it.

    Quote from Longview


    At least in this case you have attributed the source of this page long-piece apparently largely or totally excerpted from Ken Shoulders. I would recommend highlighting such "lifts" from others or italicizing. Others have noted your tendency to paste in materials to make your FANR. The whole of your effort seems to be counter productive of any real progress in the actual hard work in LENR R&D.


    The EVO experimental description came from Ken Shoulders' Electrum Validum (EV) by Robert A. Nelson found at http://rexresearch.com/ev/ev.htm


    My description of an example of LENR fuel preprocessing contains original wording of well over 50% in content by word count. You did not research your opinion. I would appreciate if you would produce a justification of your opinion by highlighting such "lifts" by italicizing all the differences from the original Robert A. Nelson article. This exercise will find that my article is original in large part and deals with the concept of fuel preprocessing in LENR and not EVO demonstration procedures.

    Axil, you wrote: “An open mind must be completely open and not selectively open.”


    Having on open mind on a subject means that you have not yet formed a definite opinion about it. Today it is no point in questioning that the earth is round. My mind is completely closed to the possibility that it is flat and so is yours I presume.


    As science makes progress there are many wrong answers that are laid to rest, we can close our minds to them. This simplifies our description of the world immensely since there is unfathomable number of wrong answers but only relatively few that are correct.


    According to my opinion LENR is not a science, but more of a pastime that is totally dedicated to finding wrong answers to questions about subatomic events, and now I will try to explain why.


    An atomic nucleus can be stable in which case it stays the same forever or it can possess excess energy to such a degree that sooner or later it will get rid of the extra energy by shedding particles. This process continues until only stable particles remain.The objective of LENR is to produce energetic (excited) nucleuses from stable elements.


    The LE in LENR stands for Low Energy which means that the Nuclear Reactions shall be initiated by energies and temperatures in a regime where chemical reactions occur. Standard physics tells us that this will never happen but let us be generous for a moment and suppose that it does.


    Voià, here is an excited nucleus. What can we say about it? The first thing that comes to my mind is that is a member of a large family called “nuclides”, see Wikipedia:


    “A nuclide (from nucleus) is an atomic species characterized by the specific constitution of its nucleus, i.e., by its number of protons Z, its number of neutrons N, and its nuclear energy state.”


    More than 3000 radioactive nuclides have been studied. You can see them all together with their stable siblings in a nuclide chart. Our Low Energy excited nucleus must be found on this chart, because there are no empty spaces in it. What we are interested in is a nuclide that can provide us with energies of millions of electron volts instead of the measly few that you get out of a chemical reaction. There are many candidates; there are around 3000 radioactive nuclides and that number will be reduced by a factor of ten before they are stable. But they all have one thing in common: when they shed their energy it will be in the form of high energy gamma rays or other high energy particles that would not only be dangerous to those working with it, they would also be easily detectible with suitable instruments. Hoping for the excited nuclide to deliver its excess energy in a million small friendly parcels (good night W-L!) would be like hoping for the lightning to discharge with a fizzle. The nature simply does not work that way, you can close your mind to it.


    So the simple fact that you never see any radiation sick LENR experimenters shows that they are not succeeding.


    By the way Axil, thank you for mentioning me side by side with Mary Yugo. (S?)he is definitely on the right track, but I do not think that like me Mary has discarded all LENR yet. Please correct me if I am wrong, Mary!

    @H-G Branzell
    Dear H-G Branzell,
    something in The Force is telling me that you are spending too much time on a subject you deem senseless. "The Doubt Side is strong with You ...".
    Apart form my galactic stupidities, I liked your text; very focused. Given your assumptions your conclusions are inevitably correct. Normally there is no way to access chemically the nuclear activation energies, and for the nuclear MeV to transform into meV.
    The point is the existence/non-existence of a mechanism that overcomes the so called Coulomb barrier in a non-kinetic way and that, at the same time, fractionates the huge nuclear quanta into many Extreme Ultra Violet or smaller EM quanta.
    If you want you can have a look at my proposal for such a mechanism (for sure it is not the only one on the market ...):
    http://lenr-calaon-explanation…ted_nuclear_reactions.pdf


    I would not be totally sure that all LENR experimenters do not receive radiation from their experiments. Anyway the absence of harmful radiation is the very essence of the attractiveness of LENR, so, using it as a proof against its own existence is somehow twisted.

    Dear Andrea Calaon,


    Thank you for your forgiving response to my, at least in the present NAE, heretic contribution to the debate.


    In your previous post you wrote:
    "The point is the existence/non-existence of a mechanism that overcomes the so called Coulomb barrier in a non-kinetic way and that, at the same time, fractionates the huge nuclear quanta into many Extreme Ultra Violet or smaller EM quanta."


    When you say that these processes occur "at the same time" you try to kill two birds with one stone. Actually there are two birds and they are not sitting side by side so you need two stones. As I sketched earlier, even if we disregard the first bird we are stuck with the problem to let the hot air out of a highly excited nuclide without getting hurt. Since every conceivable nuclide can be found in a nuclide chart that can also include all possible decay modes, it is possible to verify that there is no decay that produces one million low energy photons so you can heat a cup of tea without at the same time getting a very unhealthy tan.


    The only way to tame gamma rays is this:
    "To reduce typical gamma rays by a factor of a billion, thicknesses of shield need to be about 13.8 feet of water, about 6.6 feet of concrete, or about 1.3 feet of lead."


    I know that Widom-Larsen says otherwise but it is up to them to find an experiment that verifies their conjecture. Just talking does not kill the second bird.


    In short, there is a chain of miracles needed for LENR to work and it is, to me at least, obvious that even one miracle is one to many.

    @H-G Branzell,
    When I say "at the same time" I mean that, if the plethora of experimental results is real, there must be a single mechanism that solves both problems. The probability of two "uncommon"/miraculous mechanisms at play is ZERO.
    If you read the first slides of my presentation I explain my single "uncommon" ingredient. From that I get many if not all features of LENR, and the two miracles become only rare but not impossible "combinations".


    First miracle: chemical energy -> nuclear barrier.
    It is the nuclear force itself that gets "extended" by the electron. There is a mediator neutral particle, and it is not the neutron. This is only a slogan, but you can find some more details in my document.
    The list of the best NAEs (only from the energy point of view), that I get from a single number, covers Ca(IV) (Iwamura), K(IV) (Holmlid), Zr(IV) (Swartz), Li(I) (electrochemistry and Rossi), ... Mg(II) should not too bad, but apparently it doesn't work. May be the reason is not energetic.


    Second miracle: fractionation.
    There are no emitted gammas in the MeV range. Only many EUV photons around 14.6 [nm]. They thermalize in very thin layers. Randell Mills measured them directly. Swartz measured non-thermalized near IR.


    Third miracle: preference for stable isotopes
    The reason for this miracle is only qualitative in the mechanism that I propose. There are no excited isotopes that will decay. Only in rare cases (like the presence of B10), the excess energy of newly formed alphas gets liberated as gammas instead as kinetic energy (see Iwamura's gammas).


    The whole mechanism entails a new neutral relatively penetrating particle (see the "strange" radiation) and mainly EUV emissions, with sporadic gamma. So LENR are not completely radiation free. However they are incomparably better than conventional fission and fusion.

    @David Fojt,
    obtaining a NAE diffused in a volume is not easy. Only Li(I) can allow it at not too high temperatures. Solid NAE will remain always limited to VERY thin surfaces, because hydrogen nuclei can not cross many atomic layers.
    About your question. I think Rossi stimulates in ways he did not disclose so far. Fabiani partially confirmed this in his recent comment. Rossi needs a plasma of Li(I). Lipinsky works on a proton-Li(I) plasma, so the essence is the same of the E-cat. How Rossi maintains a "diffuse" plasma is an essential part of his technique that so far has not been disclosed an that I guess will not be disclosed soon. It could be microwaves or other means ... magnetic stirring, electrical arcs, ... .
    I also guess Rossi is accumulating the produced Hydronions (neutral particles with a large magnetic moment) in a "magnetic" lattice. It could be iron. The kHz stimulation frees the Hydronions from the traps (Larmor mechanism, seen by Kidwell and ENEA as well, radio emissions ...). The magneto-phonon coupling does the rest and expels the Hyd progressively into the surrounding where they can cause isotopic shifts and fissions. If Rossi loaded with deuterium he would get a completely different series of reactions, but he would also produce some tritium and cause upwards transmutations.
    When the kHz stimulus ceases the Hydronions remain trapped and the energy release rate drops rapidly, as Fabiani noticed. Iron or the magnetic trap material helps in two ways: it spreads the power more homogeneously in the volume and makes the "cooling" dynamics more rapid.
    Keeping a proton-Li(I) plasma alive in a solid-fluid-vapour mixed system I guess is not too easy. Unfortunately I can not help in it, I am not a chemist.
    Anyway engineering can improve rapidly only when the fundamental mechanism has been understood. I think Rossi has a lot of data, but not a complete explanation, so he must rely on many painstakingly long experiments.
    I am "sure" that the presence of neutral particles will soon emerge and will need careful measurements for ensuring safety. Without a theory this fact could become a significant hinder in the spreading of the technology.
    After 1 year at 1 MW the number of transmutations produced by the neutral particles could have compromised the structural integrity of some of the components, and I suspect this is at least part of the cause of the problems he is having lately.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.